User talk:Erik/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled Batman Begins sequel

Thanks for helping revert the uncited edits to the page. The frenzy to be 'first' to post about heath leger, or to rampantly edit opinion in on the page has been off the hook since comic-con started. Too much geek energy in one place, I suspect. I reverted back before your edit, but wanted to thank you for your efforts, and ask you to keep watching. ThuranX 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted out about five edits before yours, including opinions about Robin in the new series, some idle speculative content, and other stupid additions that lacked any sourcing, or any reason for being added. Untitled Batman Begins sequel. There's the link, if you look at the history, and compare the latest edits, you'll see what I removed. If you then click back through the previous few, you'll see all the edits as they built up. ThuranX 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your continued help is appreciated. It's simply amazing at this point that many other wiki-editors jsut don't GET that citation matters, esp. after all the reverts and talk page comments regarding this.ThuranX 02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving the page

Cool news on the new title, but in accordance wih our own rigid enforcements, do we have solid confirmation on this title? If so, I think you have to request a move, but I'm not sure. I'll try to figure it out.ThuranX 02:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

sounds like proof to me, thanks for the quote, and let's hope it's done soon! ThuranX 03:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Films are not supposed to goto Novel's. They get their own aritcle page. I am re-reverting The Dark Knight. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since The Dark Knight is has nothing else, it does not get the (FILM) tag. Check the WP:FILM project. I am taking care of everything. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 03:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Penguin (The Dark Knight)

I have found the information that Hoffman has been offered the role on more than one site. If I must go to another to get a citation, I will. BOF is just the one I happened to be visiting at the time.RoryS89 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

My bad, man, I didn't see that it was a direct quote, I thought that it was just a statement that was paraphrased. I fixed it. Thanks for the education, but you could have just said "it was a direct quote", I am aware of how brackets work. Bignole

No, it's cool. If I make a mistake then I want to know about it. I just thought it was a little rough assuming the worst (I don't know how to use them) as opposed to assuming that I wasn't pay attention to what was there. But, it's fixed now. I appreciate you letting me know. I haven't sat down and read the entire article yet, and when I saw the change I was looking at the "differences" screen and didn't notice the quote. I thought someone was paraphrasing what someone said. Either way, it was my fault for not paying attention, so, thanks for letting me know. For some reason, I've been out of it this week (as was seen when I was trying to keep "The Dark Knight" redirect from being a redirect. I wasn't pay attention there either), probably because of summer finals. I'll try and keep my eyes open from now on. Bignole 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, other than waiting for them, the only thing that I could think of (but it may not be the correct move, but I'm not sure cause I have never had just a Talk Page needed redirecting) would be to just cut and paste the information into the correct Talk Page, and in the edit summary explain that it was made on the wrong page. You can't redirect the page because the "disambiguous page" needs a Talk Page itself. I'll cut and paste it (cause it all deals with the movie) and this way if it is wrong then they'll just let me know. Bignole 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You can remove that request. I removed the redirect on the (film) talk page, so that it doesn't go to the disambig. talk page. I took the information from that talk page and put it on the (film) talk page. Everything is as it should (though I'm not sure if the steps taken were the best approach, but they were the fastest). Bignole 18:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Apocalypto

I would love citation. I googled it briefly, and I guess this actually is real. Sorry for not doing my research, but you have to admit, that's a pretty ridiculous picture. Sparsefarce 20:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Venom

It's nothing that will get resolved there. It's anons coming in and seeing the link go to Venom (comics) # Ultimate Venom, and when they see that they think that it isn't going to Venom. I left a note explaining that the link goes to a section of the correct page because that is where Eddie Jr is mentioned. He isn't mentioned anywhere else so it's more appropriate to have one link going to the correct name. Bignole 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic Four 2

Dude, someone's been mucking with the FF2 page, redirecting it all over. Until this 'rise of' title is official, i'm gonna keep 'And The' as the main article, until we get a source. ThuranX 04:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Template critique?

Hi Erik. Ace and I came up with this: Template:Cite your edits earlier today, for placing at the top of talk pages to use s asimple prompt for editors joining a page. It won't fix all the ridiculous edits, but will give something to point to and say 'hey, we warned you'. take a look, give us thoughts, then we can start using it.ThuranX 23:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On the template's talkpage, I put a basic statement of intent, and ACS and I worked on it for a while. I hope that helps others who want to use the template apply it properly. The plan is to put it at the top of pages where rumors are posted more than facts, esp., like on The Dark Knight and the other future films where lots of geeky folks like us will go to contribute, but unlike us, many others don't know to not post rumors. If you know of such a page, just add it to the top. Thanks for looking at it, hope your trip was good. ThuranX 14:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Budget

The only places I can find that report 210 million for X3 is BOM and IMDb, and we already know the IMDb is hardly reputable anymore, and BOM.com has had problems when it comes to budgets. They have Superman Return's budget at 260 million, which it wasn't. They may be factoring in budgets from lost films in the past, which should not be done, but even then it would be wrong cause no one knows the exact amount paid to previous staff. IMDb also has 300 mill for Spider-Man, so that shows they don't know what they are talking about. Bignole 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I usually like to wait it out. There was such speculation about the Superman budget till Singer came out and told everyone during an interview. I have this problem with the Pirates 2 and 3 budget. Rumor was that the studio gave 450 mill for both movies, and so everyone jumped at that and said the budgets were 225 mill for each (BOM says this). But, budgets don't work that way. They just divide and hope they don't spend more, or spend less and say "hey we need to spend some more cause we have X amount of dollars still available". The world isn't the simple, and studios, unless being filmed together at the same time (and still not even then sometimes) won't write checks for two movies, one of which hasn't been filmed yet. They'll see what the other does and probably write a bigger check for the next. I had the budgets for Pirates removed till it can be made clear. LOTR as all filmed together and each of those films has a different budget. The only clear budget right now is Kong's budget, because everyone seems to be in agreement that it is 207 million, which is lower than the rumoured amount. Bignole 16:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3

I don't think we need to be vague about the fourth villain, because Laura Ziskin has already stated that one will be Peter himself. The #5 reference goes to the interview where she says,

"And Ziskin promises one foe will be Spidey himself.

"He'll have to battle villains within," she says. "I love what we've done with this character."

We need something more than just "fourth villain". Bignole 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it reads much better now. Tell me, are you getting the gaps in the text of the different sections? I have gaps all over. It's probably just IE, but I was curious, cause other pages don't do that for me, mainly this one. Bignole

LOL..no, I meant in the Spider-Man 3 article. I'm testing it right now. I have firefox open and IE open and I'm going to compare the pages. Thanks though. Bignole

Stop changing the edits alright

Thank, you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkress613 (talk • contribs) 11:46, August 21, 2006 (UTC).

Excuse me you have no right alright, it is called user talk it does not matter . if you thing you have a right to edit on my user talk than you shouldnt be telling me this

Thank, You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkress613 (talk • contribs) 12:06, August 21, 2006 (UTC).

"Commercial Links"

If you flag users from adding links to movie media in other media formats (other than Quicktime from apple), you should also flag the addition of Apple links. Apple is a "commercial site" as are most sites that contain movie media. Adding additional viewing formats for movie media is not spamming. Not all wikipedia users have Quicktime. I'd like to know why Apple is an acceptable "academic" source for media and not other "commercial sites". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moviesnoop (talk • contribs) 08:05, August 23, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll be sure to more accurately reflect the media format for media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviesnoop (talk • contribs) 08:32, August 23, 2006

Spider-Man 3

Well, for instance, the Sandman GIF was kind of just decorative and out there, but since then the Sandman has been given its own section and been expanded to a pretty good description, which is more justified under fair use. Just sticking the image in a list of characters does _not_ really illustrate the image all that well; i.e., not the "identification and critical commentary" that the fair use tag states. Hbdragon88 19:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Transformers

I'll take a look, and post here again. ThuranX 16:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the look and the comments. I'll keep at it, but I chose to stop at the point I was at for a few hours for feedback and such, so that I don't get a massive revert of all my work. ThuranX 00:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Transformers

Seeing that you are a fellow editor that watches The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 3, I was wondering about your opinion as how to approach the Transformers article. I have no knowledge of the Transformers universe, but the article is incredibly disreputable at the moment. I'd like to work on improving it (as The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 3 have been shaping up), but I don't know where to start. Any suggestions? --Erik 16:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I'm mostly about maintainance with upgrades. Don't necessarily known how to fix it, but I suppose the place to start would be the "internet leaks" section. It's probably the most blatent issue. There and other places in the article, most of the external links could stand be transformed—forgive the pun—into proper references. Statements about "fan reaction" or "controversy" should probably be removed or changed. As mentioned on the talk page, there probably shouldn't be too many instances of nicknames being used over real names. Other than that, I'm not sure. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 17:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Punisher 2

This article's been nominated for deletion. If one future comics film goes, more will follow. ThuranX 23:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See article history page for reply. oops. ThuranX 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dark Knight

Certainly I don't want the rumour mill to overflow. But the Talia and Penguin mentions I feel are unique enough for standard mention. Nonetheless, do what you wish: you're very good at excellent articles. Wiki-newbie 16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Batman Triumphant

I voted to Keep it. Please go to the vote page to see why. I think it's worth having in the interests of holisticism, and so on. ThuranX 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an intersting link. I wonder if a proper merge can't be done, so that the sources and such in BT get integrated into B&R. ThuranX 03:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I have off tomorrow, so I can help tomorrow with a Merge edit. I think that, given that we've gone to AfD to defend COmics films before, running to delete, instead of taking on the challenge, doesn't look as cool. We've both, (and ace too) had comppliments on our revisions before, and the three of us seem to make an effective Comics Film editing group. I'd like to see that reputation continue with positive constructive edits, instead of the removal of entire sections. Let's go for a merge, which would remove an unneeded article, and strengthen the B&R article. (I'll be available about 10 am to 8 pm eastern american time) and signature ThuranX 04:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rough merging works for me. ThuranX 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Blatent Vandals

Cheers, I was vaguely aware of the existance of it due to my vandalising days, but I'll try to remember to use it in future for examples like that. Once I'm a little bit less busy I'll modify Lupin's tool to allow automatic "variable strength" vandal warning I think. Dave 23:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Two-Face

There's a debate about an image over at Talk:Two-Face#Straw_Poll. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. ThuranX 03:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, do me a favor, and post your thoughts over there. I'd rather have the full-face up until a better image is found. ThuranX 03:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick cite template question

I've been working a lot on The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and have recently begun to use the more complex referencing. Simply, how do I make one reference work multiple times, with that 'abc' thing it does? Thank you. Wiki-newbie 18:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks buddy! Wiki-newbie 19:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The future comicfilm 'template'

Hiya Erik. Here's a thought for the organization and layout of future film articles, esp. as modelled on the movies we discussed: I think that :

• Plot (or in early stages, synopsis)
• Cast
  • Confirmed
  • Unconfirmed
• Production
  • History
  • Pre-production
  • Budget
  • Filming
  • Locations
  • Score
  • Effects
• Trivia
• External Links

Let me know how you think this would work? I tried to hybridize Spider-man, dark Knight, and Iron Man. ThuranX 02:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I also gave it a try over at Ghost Rider (film). Take a look. ThuranX 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I like your theory, and don't see much to add yet. I instituted much of my first part at Ghost Rider. I think that if you go there, and institute the ideas you put on my page, that'd be a great way to model it and check for problems to solve. I'm going to copy and paste both these message parts into a page off my main page for us to look at in the future, and then, if Ghost Rider works, i'll link Ace to it. ThuranX 03:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:ThuranX/FutureComicsFilmsPage linky goodness. ThuranX 03:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wonder Woman (film) is now more in line with our idea. ThuranX 02:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So is FF2. ThuranX 03:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

30 Days of Night (film)

We should try to get this page improved. 30 Days of Night (film)... ThuranX 04:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

300

I agree with your stance, and added my own thoughts as well. ThuranX 22:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Cites

Thanks for the heads up, I'm already weaving it unto the Rings trilogy page. Just, what cite template do I use for this? [1] Thanks anyway, though IGN seems to be acting up right now. Wiki-newbie 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Spidey3/Hobgoblin

Thanks for your clarification edit about the Hobgoblin! The way you wrote it makes a lot more sense now (compared to what I originally wrote, haha). It's nice to see a contributive edit for once. Keep up the good work. No problem. Sometimes just the smallest edit can make a lot more sense. And we've all got to keep a friendly eye on each other's work, right? ;) Kelvingreen 00:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

count

about 2K, judging by clicking on your contributions, clicking the 500 most recent, then counting back the clicks on 'older 500' till i can't go back any more. ThuranX 02:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bond 22 by SpecialWindler

Sorry, i didnt mean to offend anybody but there have been many edits saying M is in it. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialWindler (talk • contribs) 17:05, October 19, 2006

Halo revertathon

No worries. I didn't catch the blanking (my bad), and must have re-reverted just after you. Good catch. :) -Porlob 21:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Spidey 3

You're right, my bad. I did misread it. I could have sworn it said "we won't be getting one with Casino Royale". Thanks for catching my mistake. Bignole 22:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops.

You're right. I stuffed up.

After moving the village of Read from 'Read' to 'Read, England' and helping a friend to create the disambiguation page at Read, I manually edited over 50 pages that pointed to Read, most of which intended to point to Reading (activity) and had nothing to do with Read, England. As you pointed out, I edited the link within a talk page by accident. No other editing was done on the talk page, so clarity, spelling and grammar were unaltered.

My apologies. --AtholM 05:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

It's an obvious allusion. No, wait, maybe they were alluding to some other libertarian/dystopian story involving Atlas. Have it your way. Agent Cooper 02:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Do you find it funny that The Dark Knight has 32 references, where Batman Begins has like 8 ref? LOL, sorry I just thought that was funny and wanted to share. I think there is a nice group of editors now that are actually taking the time, for these future films, to make sure things are properly cited from the getgo, instead of just throwing film pages up with any ol' rumor. The same goes for Spider-Man 3 compared to the first two films. I think it has more references then the first two combined. Bignole 14:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just waiting for more people to put up "Bruce Campbell is Mysterio". I can't believe SHH.com is broadcasting it in more of a light then it probably should. Campbell, himself (unless he was lying, which wouldn't surprise me) has said he's just a Matre'd. I think it's possible that they parody the Spidey movie by having one being filmed inside that fictional universe, but it seems like it might be possible that people are jumping at the first thought of someone being the SFX guy, and it would obviously be Quentin Beck. We won't know for awhile though. I don't we'll lose some of those sections. I think they will probably decrease in size, but I think it would be good to keep those Elizabeth Banks and James Cromwell (etc) sections, just maybe merge them into one main section and rewrite them to be in the correct tone of the article, when the time comes.

I'm sure there are going to be plenty of people adding tons on useless stuff to The Dark Knight as the months go by. I'm sure they'll update the suit and some other things and people will want all their pictures in the article. I agree with the archiving for The Dark Knight and we probably need it for Spider-Man 3 (again). The joys of editing. Bignole 16:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My Casino Royale edit

Hi. The edit summary "If people want to know more about Montonegro they can read the article. Otherwise why not list its population, GDP, percentage of plumbed houses!!" does not assume bad faith. If you are trying to say the sarcasm in the second sentence is not constructive, then yes, sorry you are right. Mark83 18:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Interstellar

Oh, wow, it's got two references! That changes everything. I mean, now that instead of just IMDB, it's now IMDB and an interview with Spielberg, that must eliminate any notion that it is speculative. AfD it is, then. 81.104.170.167 04:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You should know (assuming you've actually read the Spielberg interview) that it is only mentioned in passing towards the end of the interview. I might think differently of it were it the primary subject. The film is at least three years away. Tell me how that can not be speculation. 81.104.170.167 06:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, while I'd trust the man if he said something of his was due to turn up towards the end of next year, IMO his perception of 2009 is worth about as much as that of the rest of us. The same goes for IMDB - when it says that a given film is due to be released in February of next year, it's probably as accurate as you'll get. For information this far down the line, it too isn't particularly reliable. It's worth noting that there's no mention of a possible release date in the interview. That has come from IMDB, which in this case really is no better than the rumour mill via the "anonymous scoopers" (so I'm told by someone that works there). 81.104.170.167 06:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite News/Web

That's interesting. What about magazines then, which I've been using Cite News for? Wiki-newbie 18:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)